Amy Brenneman

No. 15-274 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH; AUSTIN WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER; KILLEEN WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER; NOVA HEALTH SYSTEMS D/B/A REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES; SHERWOOD C. LYNN, JR., M.D.; PAMELA J. RICHTER, D.O.; AND LENDOL L. DAVIS, M.D., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR PATIENTS, Petitioners, v. KIRK COLE, M.D., COMMISSIONER OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES; AND MARI ROBINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE KATE BANFIELD, JO BAXTER, AMY BRENNEMAN, ELIZABETH DRIEHAUS, ANNE FOWLER, CAROL MCCLEARY, SUZANNE POPPEMA, SHEILA SCHROEDER, LENI SILVERSTEIN AND JENNIFER STEFFEN IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- MICHAEL J. DELL Counsel of Record SCOTT RUSKAY-KIDD SARAH C. WHITE KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 715-9100 [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ......................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4 I. THE RIGHT TO REASONABLE ACCESS TO ABORTION IS A FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY PROTECTED BY THE CON- STITUTION ............................................... 4 II. REASONABLE ACCESS TO ABORTION IS ESSENTIAL FOR WOMEN TO BE EQUAL PARTICIPANTS IN SOCIETY .... 12 A. Kate Banfield ....................................... 12 B. Jo Baxter ............................................. 15 C. Amy Brenneman .................................. 17 D. Elizabeth Driehaus .............................. 19 E. Anne Fowler ........................................ 21 F. Carol McCleary .................................... 23 G. Suzanne Poppema ............................... 25 H. Sheila Schroeder .................................. 28 I. Leni Silverstein ................................... 31 J. Jennifer Steffen ................................... 33 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page III. THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SHOWS THAT, LIKE AMICI, MOST WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS BELIEVE THEY MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE ......... 34 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 36 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Massachusetts v. Parker, 50 Mass. (9 Met.) 263 (1845) .................................... 4 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) ............................................. 11 Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ....................................... 9, 10, 11 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ..................................... 4, 5, 8, 11 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) ............................................... 3, 8 United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ............................................. 11 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. V ................................................... 4 U.S. Const. amend. XIV ............................................. 10 STATUTES An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Arti- cles of Immoral Use, ch. 258, 17 Stat. 598 (1873) ......................................................................... 6 Conn. Stat. tit. 20, § 14 (1821) ..................................... 5 Texas House Bill 2, 83rd Leg., 2nd Called Sess. (Tex. 2013) ........................................................... 2, 36 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page OTHER AUTHORITIES G. Maxwell Christine, The Medical Profession vs. Criminal Abortion, in Transactions of The Twenty-Fifth Session of the Homeopathic Medical Society of the State of Pennsylvania 69 (1890) .................................................................... 7 Frank K. Flinn, Encyclopedia of Catholicism (2007) ......................................................................... 4 Edwin M. Hale, The Great Crime of the Nine- teenth Century (1867) ................................................ 8 Homer O. Hitchcock, Report on Criminal Abortion, in Fourth Annual Report of the Secretary of the State Board of Health of the State of Michigan 55 (1876) ...................................... 5 Hugh L. Hodge, Foeticide, or Criminal Abor- tion; A Lecture Introductory to the Course on Obstetrics, and Diseases of Women and Chil- dren (1869) ............................................................ 6, 7 Joseph Taber Johnson, Abortion and Its Ef- fects, 92-93 Transactions of the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of the State of Maryland 159 (1890) .................................................................. 6 James C. Mohr, Abortion in America (1978) ....... 4, 5, 6 Corinne H. Rocca et al., Decision Rightness and Emotional Responses to Abortion in the Unit- ed States: A Longitudinal Study, PLoS ONE (July 8, 2015), http://www.plosone.org/article/ fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal. pone.0128832&representation=PDF ...................... 35 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Corinne H. Rocca et al., Women’s Emotions One Week After Receiving or Being Denied an Abortion in the United States, 45 Persp. on Sexual and Reprod. Health 122 (2013) ............ 34, 35 Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974) ....................................................................... 10 Horatio Robinson Storer, Why Not? A Book for Every Woman (1868) ......................................... 6, 7, 8 D. Humphreys Storer, Two Frequent Cases of Uterine Disease, 6 J. Gynaecological Soc’y Boston 194 (1872) ...................................................... 7 1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amici curiae are women who chose to have an abortion. They believe the deeply personal stories they share in this brief are representative of count- less women in this country.1 It is estimated that thirty percent of American women have had or will have an abortion. Because of the continuing, sometimes violent debate over abortion, many bear the stories of their abortions in silence. These women are our loved ones, our moth- ers, our daughters, our co-workers, our neighbors and our friends from all walks of life. They are proud Americans and members of our communities whose liberty the Constitution protects. But the right of women to choose to have an abortion is threatened by the Fifth Circuit’s decision below. Amici have never regretted their decisions to have an abortion. To the contrary, they strongly believe that the right to access an abortion was and is crucial to their and every woman’s ability to define her own existence, determine her future, achieve her dreams and aspirations, and be an equal participant in our society. It is a key component of the constitutional right to liberty, and central to a woman’s 1 The parties gave written consent to file this brief. No party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part or made a monetary contribution to fund its preparation or submission. No one other than Amici and their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. 2 autonomy, dignity, and decisions concerning her family. Amici’s exercise of this fundamental liberty has enabled them to live fulfilling lives. It has al- lowed those amici who wished to have children to do so when they were able to provide a safe and support- ive home. Amici submit this brief in support of Petitioners, in support of reversing the decision of the Fifth Circuit and in support of every woman’s right to choose an abortion without undue burden on her ability to safely effectuate her choice. This Court should strike down the challenged portions of Texas House Bill 2, 83rd Leg., 2nd Called Sess. (Tex. 2013) (“HB2”), which would force more than seventy-five percent of the State’s abortion clinics to close due to restrictions that are unnecessary to the claimed purpose of safeguarding women’s health. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Access to abortion enables women to make choices central to their personal dignity and autonomy and to define their own concept of existence. Point I addresses the historical context of this Court’s recognition of the right of access to abortion as a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitu- tion. The Court has explained that women must be able to participate equally in the social and economic life of this nation. It has rejected historical generalizations about “typically female ‘tendencies’ ” or the 3 “inherent” nature of women as a basis for “constraints on an individual’s opportunity.” United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533, 541 (1996) (rejecting “expert” opinions and explaining that since 1971 “we have cautioned reviewing courts to take a ‘hard look’ at generalizations or ‘tendencies’ ” supposedly com- mon to women). Point II presents amici’s own stories, including their profound relief and gratitude for their ability to terminate a pregnancy that

Load more